Blue Harlem

[JSngry]

Not the politics of resentment, JS. The politics of...to use a word you use...fairness.

I'm lucky. I have a good job. I'm comfortable. Not rich. But comfortable.

But I work in a pretty deprived area. And every year I see kids who have started way behind have to pit themselves in exams against kids elsewhere who have had it on a plate...and if they fail, well, Daddy will bail them out.

And I've been doing the job long enough to be teaching the kids of some of those kids.

So if I don't find the idea of the perpetual right to inherited property and wealth all that savoury its not out of resentment. It's just out of an idealistic desire for a world where the kids I teach could get a start in life on a level playing field with those at Eton, Charterhouse or even the middle class estates of South Nottinghamshire. 

I'm no revolutionary - too much of a coward for that. The best I can do is continue to push the kids in my charge so that, against the odds, some of them get a foot onto the ladder and a chance. It's why I'm still here 25 years on and not decamped to an area where the children are less challenging and where I could bask in my brilliance at getting such amazing exam results.

THAT is where I'm coming from.

[incidentally, a few kids I've taught have gone on to become history teachers. I've been responsible for a Faculty for many years and seen many new teachers through their early years; and many student teachers in training. Do you think I'd have a case charging them all royalties? I'd only want them for fifty years.

One of those smiley faces. (I don't use them because I don't believe they're out of copywrite yet!)]

Fair enough, noble enough (really!), and I share your desire for a level playing field more than you perhaps realize.

But I think this shows the difference culture makes in perspective. Here in America, we too have "old money" families (although definitely not as "old" as y'all's), and more than often enough, they stink the joint up to high heaven. But it's a big enough country where we don't HAVE to deal with these pricks (or at least it USED to be big enough. The whole Reagan/Bush/Bush economic agenda seems hellbent on destroying the "buffer" that a healthy, vigorous, and multi-tiered middle class brings, but that's fodder for another forum...).

Although I've seen more than enough of the spoils that inherited wealth brings, I've also seen enough cases where it's been used wisely and benevolently to be of the opinion that, as in all things, the only moral absolute is that a system will be as good or bad as the individual in it. So it really doesn't bother me if there's 5th-or-more generation shithead trustfund babies out there benefitting from the same system that allows for Blue Mitchell's widow to receive that nice little royalty check from Blue Note that she did not too long ago. I'd like to think that should Blue's music be rediscovered (and profited from) 100 years from now that at least a token piece of the money that everybody else will be making will go to the Mitchell family, just because family matters - even it the notion has been distorted and abused grotesquely by some, family still matters.

As the laws are set up now, they won't. If Blue's music gets used in a soundtrack 100 years from now, and by some freakish notion becomes a hit, everybody BUT the heirs will get a piece. That ain't right.

Only in "the arts" do we find such a scenario. It just ain't right.

Edited April 27, 2004 by JSngry

[A Lark Ascending]

Full copyright lasts 35 years.

From year 35 to year 70 full copyright is retained IF the company makes the material generally available (not continually, but say every 7 years). If the company fails to make it available they could be forced to issue a license to interested parties. The “interested party” would pay a licensing fee to compensate the company, the artist and the composers.

From year 70 to year 100, the company is obligated to license the material to all interested parties.

After year 100 all rights terminate.

That strikes me as totally reasonable (I'm not sure I'd go to 70 but that's nitpicking).

As long as the licencing fees were reasonable it would certainly address my main concern. Allowing reasonably priced collections for the generally interested - more than a single disc but not the full academic slab. It would continue to allow the musically curious to take a chance to investigate a range of older music. But also address the concerns of the performers and those who have invested in preserving the music.

I'm not arguing for a minute that Proper are squeaky clean. Some of their boxes have had some pretty disasterous fluffs (wrong tracks, botched transfers etc), clearly a result of hurried production.

That they should be more upfront about their sources and make payment where due to living artists or where fresh work has clearly been done on the tapes - fine.

That they somehow have a duty to produce the academic product like Bear Family or Mosaic? Definitely not. There are other markets out there embracing a wider range of people than purchase the completist editions. One of the reasons I have very few Mosaics is because of the proliferation of alternate takes. I can understand why Mosaic have no wish to put out a parallel Chambers/Kelly set with just the master takes. In a few years JSP or Proper are going to do it because there will be a demand. The sort of settlement suggested might well keep all parties reasonably content.

A compromise that can ensure the fair recompense to performer/preserver within a reasonable timespan whilst also encouraging the availability of the material to listeners beyond the hardcore collector seems good to me.

I'll continue to buy the JSPs and Propers in the meantime (earning further villification from our professional Brooklyn streetkid) in much the same way as I'll continue to trade in unwanted CDs (without recompense to the performer/preserver), burn the odd CD (I'm too lazy to do much of that) and record things off the radio (without payment to performer).

Much as I'd like to see tidied up the muddy area of how to fairly put out out-of-copyright material I'm clearly ethically much weaker than some of you (not said in sarcasm, by the way!).

The thing is, however, that although I'm a bit of a lone voice in actually admitting to it I suspect I'm very far from alone in doing it!

[JSngry]

I can understand why Mosaic have no wish to put out a parallel Chambers/Kelly set with just the master takes. In a few years JSP or Proper are going to do it because there will be a demand.

Gosh, I believe that Koch & Collectables have pretty much done this already, having reissued most (all?) of the VeeJay albums by the artists in question (as well as the Morgan/Shorter material) and have by all indications legitimately leased the material! There's also a "reactivated" Vee Jay label that has put out this material. For that matter, the more "questionable" Blue Moon label has too. The latter two add a few alternates, but the first two offer straight reproductions of the LPs.

Of course, buying those individual CDs won't be as cheap as whatever the "other type" of label put out (so much LESS overhead...), but if you want most (all?) of the original material w/o the alternates (or at least, fewer), the options have already been made available.

[Aggie87]

Clem - On a side note, Peggy Lee's corpse appreciates your interest in any royalty fees that may be due to her estate...

Peggy Lee (aka Norma D. Egstrom) 5/26/1920 - 1/21/2002

[JSngry]

Peggy dead is tougher than most women alive.

[A Lark Ascending]

I can understand why Mosaic have no wish to put out a parallel Chambers/Kelly set with just the master takes. In a few years JSP or Proper are going to do it because there will be a demand.

Gosh, I believe that Koch & Collectables have pretty much done this already, having reissued most (all?) of the VeeJay albums by the artists in question (as well as the Morgan/Shorter material) and have by all indications legitimately leased the material! There's also a "reactivated" Vee Jay label that has put out this material. For that matter, the more "questionable" Blue Moon label has too. The latter two add a few alternates, but the first two offer straight reproductions of the LPs.

Of course, buying those individual CDs won't be as cheap as whatever the "other type" of label put out (so much LESS overhead...), but if you want most (all?) of the original material w/o the alternates (or at least, fewer), the options have already been made available.

Point taken.

Not exactly easily available over here, though. Amazon UK has them as 4-6 week imports. No problem for the dedicated fan, perhaps.

[JSngry]

But a problem, perhaps, for those who have "done the right thing" if and when one of those JSP/Proper/etc type labels puts the same material out?

I'm not busting your chops, nor those of the people who buy these type sets (and in all honesty, that Proper R&B tenor collection has been calling my name MIGHTILY hard for over a year now), especially the "casual" fans who are totally unaware of the economics at play, and/or "better" ways to get the much the same same material. Ignorance IS an excuse as far as I'm concerned, at least in this matter. But ONLY for the consumer. The manufacturers know EXACTLY what's going on, and have none.

But once you DO know, shouldn't you at least weigh your options before gleefully indulging in a feast for the price of a mere snack? I occasionally "do the WRONG thing" myself (sometimes MORE than occasionally), but I do so knowing what the deal is, and I try my damndest to make it up some other way. On the whole, my conscience is in no way clean, but it IS clear. I take, but I give. When one knows that one has options, to do otherwise just doesn't seem wise, at least not to me. Karma's a BITCH I tell you!

Rationalization? Sure. But I'm not one to claim an unambiguous stance in matters such as this, just as I'm not one to deny that it IS serious business (as in Business). "To live outside the law you must be honest", as Dylan somewhat portentiously, yet accurately, put it, and "doing wrong" is not a matter to be knowingly undertaken lightly.

If I'm going to be on a perpetual see-saw (and god knows, most of us are, it seems), I want it to be one that's functional and enjoyable for all concerned. Sometimes I cut in line, sometimes I give up my place to others. It's all about the "balance", and in more ways than one. Keep the see-saw balanced, and everybody rides. Put too much weight on one end, and NOBODY rides.

And when the fat kid on the one end gets off, woe be unto him/her who's on the OTHER end!

Edited April 27, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Dakota lives!

[Chuck Nessa]

Can anyone, someone, please, including an English schoolteacher explain why real property can be protected forever and intellectual property has limits?

My cynical answer is MONEY! So why the whining when someone with money (Disney) finally exerts a defense of intellectual rights?

Outfits like Proper and JSP can issue cheap sets 'cause they don't have to pay anyone and big "unfeeling" corps like BMG, EMI, etc. do.

You may bitch about the amount paid to the artists at the time, but this is the deal the artist made to get the date. Contracts are contracts, but sometimes they are amended. I know Lundvall gave all BN leaders a royalty deal, whether the original contract called for it or not.

Music publishing royalties are another thing. The song writer and/or the publisher gets money for each record sold. In the US the "statutory rate" is set by congress. It is currently $.085 for songs under 5 minutes and for songs longer $.0165 per minute. A Mosaic historical set with some thing like 25 tracks pays $2.12 per disc, per copy sold, just to the music publishers ( I used the Lang/Venuti set as an example).

FYI, my original deal with the AEC guys in 1967 when they were not known by anyone, was union scale against a 5% royalty (based on recommended retail price). They also retained their own publishing rights. Over the the years this got bumped to 7%. When I cleared the "extra material" for the AE box, I bumped the future royalties to 10% AND agreed to pay them $25,000.

To do this, I sold my record collection and borrowed $35,000 against my house.

Now, in 13 years I get to look forward to the likes of Joop Visser issueing this stuff for free,

EXCUSE ME.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Chuck Nessa

[RDK]

Chuck, I don't - and never did - disagree that the situation you describe sucks. The P.D./rights scenario you described earlier in the thread also has much validity to it and similiar things have been proposed before.

You (as others) asked why intellectual property has limits while real property doesn't. I won't argue whether I think that's right or wrong, but the reason the laws are currently the way they are fairly well summed up here. I doubt you'll agree - and I'm not sure I do either; as I've said, the fence post is poking me in the ass - but in the interest of edification...

http://reason.com/sullum/022202.shtml

Overextended

Copyrights out of control.

By Jacob Sullum

Irving Berlin wrote the original version of "God Bless America" in 1918, when Woodrow Wilson was president and transatlantic airlines were still a dream. The song was published 20 years later. Under current law, which gives works produced before 1978 a copyright term of 95 years, "God Bless America" will not enter the public domain until 2033.

Now imagine another composer who, like Berlin, writes his first big hit at 23 and dies at 101. If his breakthrough single came out today, no one could legally perform, record, publish, broadcast, or distribute it without paying for the privilege until 2150, 70 years after his death.

That's assuming Congress does not once again extend copyright terms, something it has done 11 times in the last four decades. If 148 years of exclusivity seems reasonable, why not 200 or 300?

Officially, Congress is trying "to promote the Progress of...useful arts," as the Constitution puts it, "by securing for limited Times to Authors" an "exclusive Right" to their works. But it's hard to see how extending the copyright on "God Bless America," as Congress did in 1998, serves that purpose. Even if he were still alive, Berlin couldn't exactly write the song again.

The disconnect between the intent of the Copyright Clause and its implementation by Congress is at the center of a case the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. "By repeatedly extending the terms of existing copyrights," argue several publishers of public domain material, Congress can "achieve a perpetual copyright 'on the installment plan.' "

If intellectual "property" were morally indistinguishable from tangible property--as copyright holders suggest when they equate infringement with theft--there would be nothing wrong with a perpetual copyright. We take it for granted that ownership of a house or a diamond ring does not simply expire after a set number of years and that such assets can be passed on to descendants indefinitely.

A song, a movie, or a book is not quite the same, as the very existence of the Copyright Clause suggests. The Framers did not give Congress the power to grant people rights to their homes, farms, or personal possessions because such rights already existed. Indeed, protecting those rights was one of the main reasons for establishing a government in the first place.

Copyrights, by contrast, were understood to be a legal invention, and the justification for them was utilitarian: to promote progress and enrich the culture by giving authors an additional incentive to create. But the Framers recognized that copyrights could also impede progress and impoverish the culture by preventing people from building on the work of others. That is one reason copyright terms--originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14--had to be limited.

Even with limits, copyrights were criticized by such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, who recognized them as government-granted monopolies that would invite corruption. James Madison agreed that monopolies are "justly classed among the greatest nuisances in Government" but suggested they could be justified "as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries."

Today copyright law is unmoored from the goal Madison had in mind, while the corruption Jefferson feared is evident every time Congress votes to line the pockets of big media companies by extending their monopolies. The hypocrisy of the entertainment giants makes this spectacle even harder to stomach: Disney, which has made a fortune by recycling other people's stories (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), can't bear the thought of letting early Mickey Mouse cartoons slip into the public domain.

In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to consider, the plaintiffs argue that using copyright law to to reward influential corporations is not just unappetizing but unconstitutional. Although their argument was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, at least one judge found it persuasive.

The Copyright Clause "is not an open grant of power to secure exclusive rights," Judge David Sentelle wrote in his dissent. "It is a grant of power to promote progress....Extending existing copyrights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it securing exclusivity for a limited time."

This reading of the Copyright Clause would not address all the problems associated with intellectual property. But it would restore some balance to a debate that has been dominated for too long by the uncompromising, moralistic rhetoric of monopolists.

© Copyright 2002 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

[RDK]

Here's one possible, intriguing solution (and it also answers several questions regarding current copyright laws)...

http://www.eldred.cc/ea_faq.html

[Chuck Nessa]

Thanks RDK for posting this stuff. Certainly I have known this stuff (and/or the thesis presented) for a long time.

I am amazed at the lack of response from the PD fans. Maybe they feel a bit guilty for their cheap cds, maybe not. Maybe they hope this discussion will die and they can enjoy their cds.

Where is Bev? It has been a day now. Time to collect your thoughts.

[RDK]

I think a lot of people (myself included to a degree) tend to look at the PD/intellectual rights issue on a macro verses micro basis. For the most part, I think most feel that 50 years, 75 years, or "death of the author + X" years is a perfectly adequate amount of time for a creator to retain copyrights and profit from his own work. Most seem to agree that Shakespeare's oeuvre, to use the most overused example, should be "fair game" after so many centuries as it becomes part of our collective culture.

Studies have also shown that something like 99% of all books/movies/music/etc. retain little or no commercial value after 75 years (such a cultural icon as Mickey Mouse being one notable exception). It's interesting to look back on, say, the Top 100 book lists of the 20s and 30s (or prior) - one is unlikely to recognize most of the titles, and those are the "hits" of the day. So for the most part, few people (including some artists and their heirs) care if such stuff falls into PD. (But then there are the exceptions, such as Jim's hypothetical example of Blue Mitchell's hit single in the year 2087. It sounds grossly unfair that Acme Co. might rake in the dough while Blue's great great great grandkids see nothing.)

But it's quite another thing if we get past the faceless corporate entities, obscure works, and forgotten authors. When a specific name is attached to the work, when we know and/or remember the author in question - when we realize that an aging jazz artist whose work we treasure is elderly and perhaps sick and who was most likely cheated out of the bulk of any profits years ago and could now use the money - well then, that's another story. As it is when a business deal is personalized, such as that made by Nessa Records with the AEC back in '67. Then it's much easier to look at the specific incident and label it unfair if not outright illegal - heck, now we *know* the actual dudes who are getting ripped off.

*That's* why I'm so torn on the issue. I understand and even support the need for PD, but also understand the necessity for authors to profit from their work and control it for a certain period of time. The issue has actually become more complicated recently with the rise of corporate/media conglomerations, who often own the rights at the expense of the artists. Many here have taken Verve, for example, to task for not releasing so much of their back catalog. But (as Chuck will attest) there's a lot of material there that wouldn't be able to sell enough copies to make it profitable for Uni to release them (at least on CD; the future on-line is another discussion entirely). If the owners of the material refuse (or are financially unable) to release it, should it become fair game for anyone; should it, effectively, become PD? (And is that any better or worse than exchanging CDRs of oop session?)

Ah, my head hurts. I'm going home...

Edited April 29, 2004 by RDK

[Chuck Nessa]

So I have to pay the price for the "crimes" of Universal?

Guess I have to put it down to "the greater good". Thanks. Maybe in my next life I'll be a "hard ass". God bless Herman Lubinsky.

I do think my previous scenerio solves some of these problems.

edited to correct a typo

Edited April 29, 2004 by Chuck Nessa

[JSngry]

Every scenario affects real people. If you don't know them, somebody else does.

Which is why the "absolutist" approach to things moral and legal just does not fly with me. There's more to it that theory - there's real people involved.

[JSngry]

And consider this - what are the P.D. labels going to use for source material when/if the "big guys" stop/significantly decrease reissuing things done right as far as remastering, etc. goes because of an unfeasable profit projection due to the PD label's undercutting? Seems like they most all like to boast about how good their stuff sounds (well DUH! = why shouldn't it?). The few labels, like Classics, who are truly doing this for archival/preservation reasons won't be bothered, but the other guys (the vast majority) won't have much new to offer to thier customers, not having new sources to steal from.

Yep - when the fat kid gets off the seesaw, the kid on the other side goes BOOM!

[DrJ]

Proud to say I've never purchased a Proper set, and have only two or three Blue Moon/Fresh Sound CDs (either stuff so obscure there's NO WAY it's gonna be on CD any other way, or purchased before I realized their shadiness). I guess I can see some of the viewpoints supporting purchasing their stuff, but the far more compelling argument is in favor of boycotting this approach in my view.

[JSngry]

AND -

What about shifts in technology affecting potential for income? If we were still living in an age of records and tapes, and if we were going to keep on doing so forever, then the P.D. approach makes a bit more sense.

But we're not. The CD/digital revolution has only been in the mainstream for what, not quite 20 years yet? We all know how much older material this revolution has broght back into circulation (and how much remains!). Is it fair to the legitmate holders of the rights to this older material to have just a few, or in some cases NO, years to sell this material before every Tomdickandharry can offer it? What about the smaller labels who have to take their time getting things out in digital format. Or think about the labels whose catalogs are in limbo for whatever reason.

For every Universal, there's a Nessa or a Palo Alto or a...

You get the picture. The laws and the technology are NOT in sync, and people are getting screwed, including many who probably "have it ccming to them" (Universal). But I don't think that revenge is necessarily the wisest principal for establishing law...

Edited April 29, 2004 by JSngry

[RDK]

hey guys,

glad we're all back... RDK almost killed this thread w/all that "legal" crap. i'm gonna tear the shrinkwrap "in the land of oo-bla-dee" now & wonder what RDK or Bev or whomever will say about the eventuality of Jack Towers' transfers in the Uptown Bird "Boston 1952" turning up elsewhere... let alone the Proper Chicago '67-'68 box; maybe they'll do it "right" & throw in "For Alto" & "Sound" too. that'll be the day--

clem

Clem, you're pretty damn thick sometimes, anybody ever tell you that?

I (nor Bev for that matter I do believe) ever said anything about believing that it was "okay" for anyone to steal the transfers made by Uptown or anyone else. I know I haven't. It may not be "illegal" - at least in Europe - but it's nevertheless a shitty and underhanded thing to do. As long as the Uptown Mingus release (for example, since it's one that I own) is available, I see no reason for any other versions to exist.

My point has always been that I think it's okay that at some point in the future - be it 50 years, 75 years or some longer period to be determined - that artistic material enter the public domain. You seem to think it's not okay. So be it. For me, the Proper Boxes (of which I do own several; I can't comment on Blue Moon or the other labels because I'm not familiar with them) fall into a gray area. They are "legal" - as opposed to the CDR copying which you have proposed - and cheaply fulfill a niche that, for my purposes, can't easily be filled elsewhere. I've been listening to the Big Horn box over the last few days and I can't think of any other source to get a vast majority of these tracks. I'd probably need to buy a dozen Classics discs, at least, as well as assorted comps and even then there are many tracks on here that (according to AMG at least) aren't available elsewhere. I'm not a completist - at least not of, say, Morris Lane - so a 100+ track genre sampler is just what I need.

[JSngry]

Q: What do you call a car that's made entirely of stolen and/or "found" parts?

A: A Proper Box!

(JUST KIDDING!!!)

[RDK]

Then there's crap like this...

http://publicdomainriches.com/?27250

[RDK]

And can you imagine the debates if (when?) something like this comes to the jazz community?

http://www.gutenberg.org/

[A Lark Ascending]

Where is Bev? It has been a day now. Time to collect your thoughts.

Sorry, Chuck.

I can't think of much more to say without repeating myself (again!).

On copywrite I hold to my belief that 50 years is enough - most workers would be delighted to have their labours produce a product that could be copywrited for five years, let alone fifty. Working in a field where creativity is also vital yet where the norm is to immediately share it without payment (unless you choose to write it up and publish it) I find it difficult to weep tears for those whose payments cease after 50 years.

On the Proper issue - clearly a muddier area than I first thought. But I'd still like to see a more rounded investigation. I'm still perplexed by the fact that the furious condemnation of them here is not reflected in a widespread boycott of them by the labels they distribute. I'm suspicious, but not yet convinced.

Yes, I'm probably guilty of ethical compromise in buying sets like this. Stand me in front of someone who doesn't tape radio shows, has never bought a bootleg (I havn't!), taped or CDR'd a recording they've not bought and so on and I stand condemned. But I'd be more than a little amused to be lectured to by anyone who has done those things.

I'll leave it at that. I really have no wish to provide further ammunition for Clementine to go off on another one of his rants. Though I suspect I have...

Count that as a surrender if you like.

[Perhaps a poll on who has buried their Propers might be interesting at this point?]

Edited April 29, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

And can you imagine the debates if (when?) something like this comes to the jazz community?

http://www.gutenberg.org/

Talk about irony...

From http://www.gutenberg.org/license :

Starting with eBook #10001, a major rewrite of the Project Gutenberg license and "small print" went into use. It is consistent with prior licenses (which have evolved over the years), but easier to read. This new license starts each eBook with this paragraph:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

The main restrictions are for people who choose to modify the eBooks, and for any commercial use of the Project Gutenberg trademark (which is registered in the US and internationally). (emphasis added)

[JSngry]

Mo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'money

From http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/header-howto :

Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you

charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.

Edited April 29, 2004 by JSngry